My brother and I have been going back and forth over the last few years, his atheism has really taken a sharp curve into aggravating territory. I got this message from him, and I'm trying to let my anger subside before I respond. I'm curious what you would say:The only two things you should ever worry about getting married to each other are big government and big religion. While many are very vocally opposed to "redefining marriage" (even, though there are more than one definition of marriage if you bother to look in a dictionary) they don't realize that, in the process, they are redefining the word "liberty". Anyone who believes that big government is too intrusive on their personal lives, but also believes that using religion to dictate the liberty of others isn't intrusive, needs to look in a mirror... for there they will most definitely find the definition of "hypocrite".

Your brother is operating from the premise that homosexuality is normal, natural behavior, and therefore any law against it is purely for religious reasons. This is where you attack.

Inform him that a majority of Americans still consider homosexuality to be a sexual disorder (as well as a sin), so why would anyone support using the government to force Americans to accept homosexuality as normal? And the only reason for "gay marriage" is precisely to force people to accept homosexuality as normal because it will be law that two men or women having sex is the same as a man and a woman having sex. Tell him forcefully that homosexuality is a SEXUAL DISORDER and should be treated as such.

If you accept the premise that homosexuality is normal natural behavior, you've already lost the argument, because "human rights" concerns logically appear after that concession.

Stop right there. Your dear brother is already presupposing things that he cannot account for, explain or justify, given his atheistic world-view. He is adopting a presupposition contrary to the conclusion he wants to argue; namely, that there is no God.

Already, when he says, "should", or (later) uses the word, "hypocrite" he presupposes some sort of absolute standards of morality or reason that are universal and prescriptive in nature, the very things that are precluded by his own world view. His prescriptions do not make any sense unless it is objectively wrong, for example, to redefine the word "liberty", marry big government and big religion, or be a hypocrite.

But how does he justify his notion that some things are good and some things are evil when in the atheistic world-view everything just amounts to different combinations of matter in motion? What sense does it make to think that matter in motion is not behaving as it 'ought" to?

Your brother's atheism cannot account for his moral umbrage. He is not in any position to explain the objective and unchanging nature of moral notions like good or evil because his atomic makeup as opposed to someone else's atomic makeup ultimately reduces to mere relativistic preferences for thinking,

And because your brother is a finite, ever changing collection of molecules and electrochemical reactions he is also in no position to pronounce on what is universally true even in a descriptive sense because the aforesaid electro-chemical reactions that make up your brother are limited in the scope of their use and experiences.

In short, his arguments and claims are self-vitiating and incoherent.

Cordially,

66
posted on 09/16/2012 10:54:43 PM PDT
by Diamond
(He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people,)

Is your brother a homosexual? Maybe he is trying to tell you something. Ask him. If he isn’t it might take him back a bit to be asked if he is one.
Other than that I would simply tell him that darkness cannot comprehend light and since he doesn’t at this time confess Christ as LORD and Saviour he cannot understand the truth of the matter, but you will pray for his salvation. And then do it. Pray for him. Ask God to save him, as only He can. Pray and even weep for him before The LORD, because if he doesn’t get saved, he will burn in the lake of fire forever. If all of us would come to stronger grips with this fact, we would be praying with many tears for those we love, and The LORD would hear.

67
posted on 09/16/2012 11:06:36 PM PDT
by Bellflower
(The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)

He sounds like my brother and I have decided that the only thing that will get through to him is prayer. I said the same thing to my other brother who wanted to reason with him, it can’t be done because he isn’t reasonable and will not change his mind absent an act of God.

So I will optimistically pray for him and also pray that he doesn’t find the time to vote if God doesn’t change him in the next few months.

So I guess it is liberty to not warn our gay meighbors that their lifestyle is against God, (and will if supported send them to Hell), rather than (not angrily or hatefully) share the truth of the Gospel?

Jesus is real, and He wants to save both your brother and the practicing homosexuals. He created life, He gets to make the rules.

I am not denying scripture is important. But what comes first? The only people Jesus directly confronted like you speak were the pharisees. I would guess your brother knows pretty clearly that he is separated from God (if he thought there was one). What he only knows is who God is by those around him that say they follow Him.... just a thought.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . .

Marriage is an establishment of religion

This is an example of amphiboly. You've kept the same spelling of a word in two sentences but changed the meaning between them. In the first sentence, "an establishment of religion" is a religious establishment, ie., a church, as in "Church of England," Methodist, Anabaptist, etc. In the second sentence, you used "establishment" as "a relationship sanctified by a religion." This change in meaning makes your argument null.

But how does he justify his notion that some things are good and some things are evil when in the atheistic world-view everything just amounts to different combinations of matter in motion? What sense does it make to think that matter in motion is not behaving as it 'ought" to?

Exactly, that is exactly what was going through my mind all last night. How can he define morality without a superior being, because we all know that without God, that man is shiftless, a beast of his own desires and want, and when one man cannot tell what another man to do with his life because that other man's "beliefs" are subjective to the other.

Your brother is using his ideas of “good” and “bad”, or “right” and “wrong” to argue against what he sees as a “wrong” system. However, in an evolutionary or atheistic worldview there can be no real right and wrong since everything is relative and the only consistent truth is survival of the fittest. He has borrowed his beliefs from a Godly worldview in which there is justice and injustice. As C.S. Lewis said... (paraphrased) How can one argue against a crooked line when he has no notion of a straight one?

I don’t know how your discussions with him go, but he’s right about worrying about the joining of Big Government with Big Religion. Theocratic regimes are among the worst hellholes to live in. Right up there with them are Cult of Personality dictatorships where Big Government IS the religion.

Your brother sounds more like a very big hardcore L Libertarian in that he sees this as a matter of government enforcing a religious POV. To some degree, he may be right even as he is also wrong.

As a Conservative who is a small l libertarian and also a non-believer (I prefer the term non-believer for describing myself over Atheist because I see too many that call themselves Atheist to be anti-religious freedom and anti-Christian more than anything, and while I may not believe in God or in Gods or in the supernatural, I am not anti-religious, especially not anti-Christian as I see the traditions of the Christian religion as being a big driver in the founding of our nation).

As far as the States definition of marriage; while tradition holds and has always held that marriage is between a man and a woman, the State doesnt have all the same sorts of test for and demands of who can get married excepting of course for laws regarding close relatives, siblings, 1st and 2nd cousins (although it could be mentioned that 2nd and even 1st cousins did legally marry, even get married in churches in the past, it was not all that uncommon), that the man and woman be of legal age and mentally competent, etc.

But let me try to explain further. The State doesnt care if two Atheists get married or a man and woman belonging to different religions  say a Hindu and a Zoroastrian, a Catholic and a Jew, a marriage between different races etc. The State recognizes those marriages and treats them from a purely legal perspective the very same if it was a civil non-religious ceremony performed by a JOP, a sea captain, a ordained Universalist Unitarian minister, just as much as a marriage performed by an ordained minister or Priest or Rabbi in a very traditional church or synagogue. However a church may choose not to recognize such marriages in terms of how their religion defines marriage. The State, unlike many churches, also doesnt require prior religious instruction or a promise to raise children in any particular faith prior to marriage, nor does the State, unlike many religions, require that a married man and woman even have children. The State recognizes divorce whereas some religions do not or only under rare circumstances.

So where does this lead me as a Conservative, small l libertarian and a non-believer in terms of Gay marriage?

Some good perspectives and points from a secular perspective can be found here:

{3} There really is a slippery slope here. Once marriage has been redefined to include homosexual pairings, what grounds will there be to oppose further redefinition  to encompass people who want to marry their ponies, their sisters, or their soccer team? Are all private contractual relations for cohabitation to be rendered equal, or are some to be privileged over others, as has been customary in all times and places? If the latter, what is wrong with heterosexual pairing as the privileged status, sanctified as it is by custom and popular feeling?

{5} Human nature exists, and has fixed characteristics. We are not infinitely malleable. Human society and human institutions need to fit human nature, or at least not go too brazenly against the grain of it. Homophobia seems to be a rooted condition in us. It has been present always and everywhere, if only minimally (and unfairly  there has always been a double standard here) in disdain for the man who plays the part of a woman. There has never, anywhere, at any level of civilization, been a society that approved egalitarian (i.e. same age, same status) homosexual bonding. This tells us something about human nature  something it might be wisest (and would certainly be conservative-est) to leave alone.

{6} There is a thinness in the arguments for gay marriage that leaves one thinking the proponents are not so much for something as against something. How many times have you heard that gay marriage is necessary so that gay people will not be hindered in visiting a hospitalized partner? But if hospitals have such rules  a thing I find hard to believe in this PC-whipped age  the rules can be changed, by legislation if necessary. What need to overturn a millennial institution for such trivial ends?

As far as rights; gay couples can, just like heterosexual couples who choose to not live in a traditional relationship such as a traditional marriage, that currently being defined as that between a man and a woman, can still live together, can purchase and own joint property, can hold joint checking accounts, can will property to each other, can enter into business and other legal contracts together or with each other such as naming their partner in a living will or naming that person their medical guardian in case of illness. In other words, they are granted the very same rights and are protected by the very same laws that I, as an unmarried heterosexual woman have.

As a childless, unmarried, heterosexual middle aged woman, I have named my niece and nephew in my will, they are my emergency contacts, the beneficiaries of my life insurance policies and 401k should I die, Ive named my niece in my living will and should I become terminally ill and reach the point of no longer mentally competent to make decisions for myself, will name my niece as my legal and medical guardian. I can do all these things without marrying my niece or nephew. And absent my niece and nephew, I could have also named my heterosexual, Catholic and married best friend. I cannot claim any of them as dependents for tax purposes, nor could I also if I chose to live with a man without the benefit of marriage, claim him.

So in other words, what I would say to your brother is that gay marriage in no way grants them any legal rights that they, in reality do not already have. The only reason for recognizing gay marriage is to grant special rights to a specially recognized and socially non-traditional arrangement that we as a people do not and should not grant to any and all voluntary arrangements (marriages between siblings, minor children, plural marriages) and to force religious institutions to recognize gay marriage as being equal to marriage as defined by that religions definition.

I would ask your brother, as a Libertarian, if he thinks that this is really Liberty or is just the voice of a small minority dictating its will on the majority and if he is OK with marriages between consenting brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers with their children, minor children with each other, young minor children with adults, plural marriages, marriages between humans to cats, dogs, sheep, etc.

As a "free" individual, I can and should be allowed to voluntarily enter into whatever sort of living arrangement I chose to with other consenting adults without government interference, but I also have no expectation that the government or that the will and consensus of a truly free people have to be forced to accept my choices as being "normal" or grant that relationship a status equal to marriage.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.